Shabbira Bebe through Ahmad Bilal vs Shabbir Ahmad etc

FORM No. HCJD/C-121

Order Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

LAHORE

Judicial Department Diary No. 64893/26 dated 12.05.2026 Shabbira Bebe Vs. Shabbir Ahmad, etc.

Sr.No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of Parties’ counsel, where order/ Proceeding necessary.

proceedings

01.06.07.2026 Mr. Muhammad Saleem A Chaudhry, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Ch. Muhammad Naseer Advocate.

Objection Case

The petitioner, through this review petition, placed before this Court as an objection case, challenges order dated 28th April 2026 passed by this Court, whereby RFA No. 23516 of 2026 filed by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 25th February 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad in his capacity as Judge Special Court appointed under the Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act 2025, was dismissed with the result that the order of dismissal of her suit for declaration and permanent injunctions as not maintainable, was upheld.

2.On the aforementioned review application the office has raised objection at Serial No. 3 of the objection sheet relating to insufficiency of court fee

and payment of security amount for review of judgment and decree in the following terms:

“3. Court fee is insufficient to the extent of Rs. 5000/- as security and 1⁄2 amount of court fee.”

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contests the aforementioned objection on the ground that twofold objection has been raised on his petition requiring the petitioner not only to deposit the security amount of Rs.5000/- but also to pay half of the court fee, which according to him amounts to double jeopardy as court fee has been requisitioned twice under two different heads of account and on the said basis it is claimed that the above mentioned objection is not sustainable and prays that the same be overruled.

4.On the other hand the learned Law Officer defends the office objection by stating that the object and purpose of requiring deposit of security amount is different from the object and purpose of payment of court fee and therefore does not amount to double jeopardy and the office was legally justified to raise the said objection, which merits to be sustained.

5.The entries No. 3 and 4 of First Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870 relating to affixation of ad valorem court fee provide for affixation of court fee

on review petition(s) at the rates mentioned therein, which are reproduced below:

Sr. No. Article Proper Fee

3.Application for review of The fee leviable on judgment, if presented on or the plaint or after the ninetieth day from memorandum of the date of the decree. appeal.

4.Application for review of One-half of the fee judgment, if presented before leviable on the plaint the ninetieth day from the or memorandum of date of the decree. appeal.

6.The Entry No. 3 provides that where application for review of judgment is presented after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, fee equal to the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal has to be affixed on the same. Whereas in terms of Entry No. 4, if the application for review of judgment is presented before the ninetieth day of passing of decree, fee equal to half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal has to be affixed on the same. The only distinction between the two entries requiring affixation of different amounts of court fee is the timeframe within which the review petition is filed after passing of decree. As the petitioner does not challenge the different quantum of court-fee payable on filing of application for review within or after ninety days of passing of decree, therefore the said aspect of the matter is not required to be discussed any further at this stage.

7.It is important to note here that the object and purpose for the enactment of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was to secure and recover the revenue for the benefit of State and was neither to penalize the litigant public for non-compliance of any provision of the same nor to arm a litigant with weapon of technicality to harass his opponent. Reliance is placed on cases titled Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289), Naik Muhammad and another versus Additional District Judge, Vehari and 5 others (1985 CLC 1969 Lahore), Muhammad Shafi versus Rehmat Ali (1985 CLC 432 Lahore), Rashid Ahmad and another versus Khurshid Ahmad Khawar and another (1985 CLC 274 Lahore), Sikandar Din versus Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 2 others (1987 CLC 2428 Lahore) and Hafiz Muhammad Mubeen through legal heirs versus Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and 5 others (2014 MLD 419 Sindh).

8.However, it is important to note here that Sections 14 and 15 of the Court Fees Act provide for refund of fee affixed on review application in certain cases, which are reproduced below:

“14. Refund of fee on application for review of judgment.– Where an application for a review of

judgment is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant’s laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would have been payable had it been presented before such day.

15.Refund where Court reverses or modifies its former decision on ground of mistake.– Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted, and where, on the rehearing, the Court reverses or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake in law or fact, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee payable on any other application to such Court under the Second Schedule to this Act, No.1, clause (b) or clause (d).

But nothing in the former part of this section, shall entitle the applicant to such certificate where the reversal or modification is due, wholly or in part, to fresh evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing.”

9.In contrast, cash security of rupees five thousand is required to be deposited while filing the review petition in terms of Order XLVII Rule 1 sub- rule (3) added by the Lahore High Court Notification No. 498/Legis/XI-Y-26, dated 28.02.2011, whereby amendment in Order XLVII of the First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made by this Court in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 122 of the said Code with the approval of the Government of Punjab and published for general

information under the provisions of Section 127 of the Code, which provides as follows:-

“In Order XLVII, in Rule 1 after sub-rule 2, the following sub-rule (3) shall be added:

(3)No application for review shall be entertained unless the person seeking review furnishes cash security of rupees five thousand. The security shall stand forfeited if the review petition is dismissed at the initial stage without notice to the opposite party. The amount deposited as security shall be paid to the opposite party if the review petition is dismissed after being contested. The provision of this rule shall not apply where the applicant seeking review is a person who has been declared by a competent court to be an undischarged insolvent or a pauper.”

10.The object and purpose of requiring deposit of security amount for review of judgment/decree in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC on the one hand is that frivolous, unnecessary and unwarranted review applications be discouraged, resulting in forfeiture of said amount if petition is dismissed at the initial stage without notice to the other side and on the other hand to compensate the opposite party, in case the said party appears before the court to contest the same and the review application is dismissed thereafter. However, in case the petition for review succeeds the security amount is to be returned to the petitioner as the aforementioned Rule does not provide for a penal consequence in case

the petition is accepted and order under review is reversed or modified. A similar conclusion has already been drawn by the Peshawar High Court while dealing with vires of a similar provision for deposit of security amount in terms of High Court of Peshawar Rules and Orders in the case titled Tauqir Ahmed versus Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar and 3 others (PLD 2026 Peshawar 13). The operative portion of said order is reproduced below:-

“6. It is also to be noted that the Rule under challenge does not impose any fee or cost at the time of filing of the review petition, rather it is a security deposit, which is to be returned to the petitioner upon success of his petition. However, it is to be given to the opposite party where it fails after a contest, so that at-least some consolation is provided to the party who, after being successful, was again dragged into litigation before the same Court. This clearly shows that a person who files a review petition actually having good and sufficient grounds need not worry about the deposit of the said security, as he is most likely to get it back upon the success of his petition. The frivolous and unnecessary petitions however will have to pay for the wastage of time and process of the Court as well as the other side. Thus, to check the menace of frivolous and unnecessary petitions cannot be said to infringe upon the rights of any person.”

11.The combined reading of the

aforementioned provisions of Court Fees Act and sub- rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC by placing the same in juxtaposition makes it clear that object and purpose of requiring affixation of court fee and

deposit of security amount are based on entirely different concepts and requiring the simultaneous deposit of the same side by side for different purposes and intents does not tantamount to constitute double jeopardy by requisition of deposit of the same fee twice and cannot be set aside on the said ground.

Hence, the office objection at Serial No. 3 of the objection sheet is sustained.

12.When apprised of the aforementioned legal position, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to remove office objection. Let him do so within next 15-days. If the office objection is removed within stipulated timeframe, office shall number the case and place the same for hearing on judicial side, otherwise consign to record.

(Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) Judge Zeeshan Khan/naveed

APPROVED FOR REPORTING: